© ReutersPro-Kiev terrorist throws a Molotov cocktail at the burning Trade Union building in Odessa, killing 48 people trapped inside. May 2, 2014.
The
murder of at least
38 people in the city of Odessa in the midst of Kiev's "anti-terrorist" offensive last Friday revealed the true face of the
fascist regime that has
seized power in Kiev - and the Western media is doing everything it can to cover up the truth.
Most "mainstream" accounts of what happened there are
filled with ambiguity: it's "not clear" who's responsible, they say. Everybody was supposedly throwing Molotov cocktails and so who's to say who started which conflagration?
And yet the truth is getting out there. The
Washington Post reported on Saturday that "police said at least 31 people were dead after pro-Kiev demonstrators hurled Molotov cocktails into a building where a pro-Russia contingent was holding out." The piece cites tweets from
Howard Amos, a
Guardian reporter on the scene, noting that the fire broke out on the main floor of the Trade Union building, where a pro-Kiev crowd had gathered and was storming the building - and where, as
USA Today noted, "Witnesses and journalists reported that as the building burned with people inside,
a crowd shouted, 'Glory to Ukraine!" and 'Death to enemies!'"The
USA Today headline read: "Fire Kills 31 in Odessa." But did the fire kill them - or was it the people who set the fire? And let's go back to Howard Amos' tweets to find out exactly who is fighting on the front lines on the pro-Kiev side: why
it's Right Sector! They're leading the crowd, just as
they did on Friday.
Washington has no intention of allowing the crisis in Ukraine to be resolved. Having failed to seize the country and evict Russia from its Black Sea naval base, Washington sees new opportunities in the crisis.
One is to restart the Cold War by forcing the Russian government to occupy the Russian-speaking areas of present day Ukraine where protesters are objecting to the stooge anti-Russian government installed in Kiev by the American coup. These areas of Ukraine are former constituent parts of Russia herself. They were attached to Ukraine by Soviet leaders in the 20th century when both Ukraine and Russia were part of the same country, the USSR.
Essentially, the protesters have established independent governments in the cities. Thepolice and military units sent to suppress the protesters, called "terrorists" in the American fashion, for the most part have until now defected to the protesters.
With Obama's incompetent White House and State Department having botched Washington's takeover of Ukraine, Washington has been at work shifting the blame to Russia. According to Washington and its presstitute media, the protests are orchestrated by the Russian government and have no sincere basis. If Russia sends in military units to protect the Russian citizens in the former Russian territories, the act will be used by Washington to confirm Washington's propaganda of a Russian invasion (as in the case of Georgia), and Russia will be further demonized.
The Russian government is in a predicament. Moscow does not want financial responsibility for these territories but cannot stand aside and permit Russians to be put down by force. The Russian government has attempted to keep Ukraine intact, relying on the forthcoming elections in Ukraine to bring to office more realistic leaders than the stooges installed by Washington.
Justin Sink
The HillThu, 24 Apr 2014 13:13 UTC
© Getty Images
First lady Michelle Obama is scrapping her plans to deliver a graduation speech for high school seniors in Topeka, Kan., after hundreds signed a petition in protest.
Instead of delivering a graduation speech, Obama will speak before the school district the day before graduation, and will deliver remarks at a "Senior Recognition Day."
More than 1,750 people had signed a petition protesting the first lady's appearance at the graduation ceremony, angered that security concerns would limit the number of friends and family who could attend.
According to the
Topeka Capital-Journal, students would have only been allotted six tickets apiece had the first lady maintained her original plans.In a statement to The Hill, the first lady's communications director said Obama wanted to accommodate all who hoped to attend the graduation ceremony.
When the Bush administration started lobbying for war with Iraq, they used as rationale a definition of preemption (generally meaning anticipatory use of force in the face of an imminent attack) that was broadened to allow for the waging of a preventive war in which force may be used even without evidence of an imminent attack. They also were able to convince much of the American public that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks of 9/11, despite the fact that no evidence of a link has been uncovered. Consequently, many people supported the war on the basis of 1) a policy that has no legal basis in international law and 2) a totally unfounded claim of Iraqi guilt.
What most people do not know, however, is that certain high ranking officials in the Bush administration have been working for regime change in Iraq for the past decade, long before terrorism became an important issue for our country. In 1997 they formed an organization called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). They have sought the establishment of a much stronger U.S. presence throughout the Mideast and Iraq's Saddam Hussein has been their number one target for regime change. Members of this group drafted and successfully passed through Congress the Iraqi Liberation Act, giving legal sanctions for an invasion of the country, and funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to Hussein opposition groups called the Iraqi National Congress and The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
© PJMedia.com
Attorney General Eric Holder canceled an appearance before the Oklahoma City Police Department's graduating cadet class Thursday amid angry protests over his scheduled visit.
Mr. Holder was expected to deliver remarks at the afternoon graduation ceremony, according to his official itinerary sent out by the Justice Department Thursday morning.
A Justice Department spokesman denied that the trip was canceled because of the possibility of a hostile reception. An early meeting at the Justice Department delayed Mr. Holder's departure from Washington, causing him to miss the graduation ceremony, spokesman Brian Fallon said in an email.
"The attorney general had been looking forward to addressing the cadets, and regrets he cannot attend in person," Mr. Fallon said. "He extends his heartfelt congratulations to the cadets and their families."
Chris Elliott
GuardianSun, 04 May 2014 15:03 UTC
© Russian govt
Trolling covers a multitude of sins but
a particularly nasty strain has emerged in the midst of the armed conflict in
Ukraine, which
infests comment threads on
the Guardian and elsewhere, despite the best efforts of moderators.
Readers and reporters alike are concerned that these are from those paid to troll, and to denigrate in abusive terms anyone criticising
Russia or President Vladimir Putin.
One complaint came to the readers' editor's office on 6 March. "In the past weeks [I] have become incredibly frustrated and disillusioned by your inability
to effectively police the waves of Nashibot trolls who've been relentlessly posting pro-Putin propaganda in the comments on Ukraine v Russia coverage.
"... the quantity of
pro-Kremlin trolling on this topic ... which has been documented extensively since 2012 as
a real and insidious threat to online communities of idea and debate,
has rendered commenting on these articles all but meaningless, and a worthless exercise in futility and frustration for anyone not already being
mind-controlled by the Kremlin."
On 23 April the writer complained again: "
One need only pick a Ukraine article at random, pick any point in the comments at random, and they will find themselves in a sea of incredibly aggressive and hostile users (the most obvious have accounts created since February 2014 ... but there also exist those who registered with the
Guardian before the high point of the crisis)
who post the most biased, inciteful [sic] pro-Kremlin, anti-western propaganda that seems as if it's taken from a template, so repetitive are the statements. Furthermore, these comments are consistently capturing inordinate numbers of 'recommends',
sometimes on the order of 10 to 12 times what pro-Ukrainian comments receive."
Comment: Props to the Guardian for publishing such an exemplary propaganda piece! Somebody's gotta do it, and Chris Elliott takes up the task with inhuman vim and vigor. There's so much wrong with Elliott's piece above that it's hard to know where to start. First of all, yes, many governments have paid internet trolls to maintain the accepted talking points and party line on a whole host of issues. But 'Missy' Elliott misses the crux of the matter: how many pro-Kiev comments are being posted by American govt-hired trolls? Why no outrage about the open secret called Hasbara, Israel's online army of brainwashed and brainwashing Net trolls?
Second, why on earth should anti-Kiev comments be described as "particularly nasty", an "infestation", "insidious", "inciteful" [sic]? Let's remember what we're talking about here! After all, a pro-Kiev commenter, by supporting the "Western" narrative, must at least implicitly support the following: externally directed coups against legally elected governments, the murder of innocent people fed up with their corrupt leaders, said leaders ordering troops to kill their fellow citizens, right-wing nazi extremists, the deliberate murder of unarmed civilians by burning them alive, shooting them in the head, strangling pregnant women, et cetera ad nauseam. Using nasty words to describe something that is inherently anti-nastiness is a classic propaganda technique. Is your government engaged in nefarious, murderous, treasonous behavior? Well, just describe the opposition as "particularly nasty", an "infestation", "insidious", "inciteful" and you'll be right as rain!
Third, there is "no conclusive evidence" that this is a Russian campaign! Did it not even enter the empty-headed Elliott's mind that these comments reflect what people actually think? That they're fed up with the murderous regime installed by Western advisers and manipulators, and that online comments reflect this? It's plain as day who's in the wrong here: Kiev, the West, NOT Russia or the anti-Kiev protestors in Ukraine.
Fourth, we have only one response to the Guardian's 'commenter' quoted above, who wrote, "Furthermore, these comments are consistently capturing inordinate numbers of 'recommends', sometimes on the order of 10 to 12 times what pro-Ukrainian comments receive": that's the way it should be!
© AP
Did Hillary Clinton accomplish anything as secretary of State? That question is in the news at the moment because an Associated Press reporter asked something like it this week at a Foggy Bottom briefing and a State Department spokeswoman fumbled the response.
The specific subject was the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, a periodic reassessment of State Department organization that was a particular focus of Secretary Clinton. At Tuesday's press briefing, spokeswoman Jen Psaki announced that the 2014 edition of the QDDR is now under way. So AP's Matt Lee asked Ms. Psaki an obvious question: "Off the top of your head, can you identify one tangible achievement that the last QDDR resulted in?"
No, not really. She punted.
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me."
- Martin Niemoller
© beefcakepantyhose
Despite what some may think, the Constitution is no magical incantation against government wrongdoing. Indeed, it's only as effective as those who abide by it. However, without courts willing to uphold the Constitution's provisions when government officials disregard it and a citizenry knowledgeable enough to be outraged when those provisions are undermined, it provides little to no protection against SWAT team raids, domestic surveillance, police shootings of unarmed citizens, indefinite detentions, and the like.
Unfortunately, the courts and the police have meshed in their thinking to such an extent that anything goes when it's done in the name of national security, crime fighting and terrorism. Consequently, America no longer operates under a system of justice characterized by due process, an assumption of innocence, probable cause and clear prohibitions on government overreach and police abuse. Instead, our courts of justice have been transformed into courts of order, advocating for the government's interests, rather than championing the rights of the citizenry, as enshrined in the Constitution.
Just recently, for example, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in
U.S. v. Westhoven that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest you - even if you've done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.
In that same vein, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in a 5-4 ruling in
Navarette v. California that police officers can, under the guise of "reasonable suspicion," stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior.
RTSun, 04 May 2014 15:09 UTC
The Ukrainian military has started an operation against pro-autonomy activists in the city of Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine, as well as the town of Konstantinovka, according to local self-defense activists.
The troops have moved into Mariupol and have surrounded an administrative building held by anti-government protesters. The protesters have set up barricades and are burning tires.
There are a few hundred activists inside the building. They told RT that the army is warning them that if they do not leave the building in the coming minutes, they will be fired at and the building will be seized.
"I am in the center of the city, there are a lot of ambulances outside the local administration building, gunfire is being heard, armored vehicles have entered the city and are moving towards the center," witness Tatyana told RT by phone. "People are going there as well, to prevent the soldiers from shooting. We are hoping they won't shoot at civilians, though from what we've seen before, we are not sure anymore."
© Pando Daily
The following story
by David Sirota at PandoDaily is simply excellent. It zeros in on the secretive and rapidly expanding relationship between private equity firms and the public pensions that invest in them. It shows a crony capitalist love affair greased by lobbyist influence peddlers known as "placement agents," as well as non-public agreements between PE firms and public pensions chock full of conflicts of interest, extremely high fees and underperformance. Unbelievably, in many instances the trustees of the public pensions are not allowed to know what funds the "fund of funds" invest in. This makes due diligence impossible, and in one particularly egregious example it led the Kentucky Retirement Systems to unknowingly invest in SAC Capital despite the fact it was under SEC investigation at the time.
Furthermore, with the Wall Street Journal reporting back in 2011 that $37 of every $100 dollars invested in Blackstone's investment pool coming from state and local pension plans, it appears that taxpayers are once again being fleeced by the financial oligarch class. Additionally, it appears to answer a recent question I posed in my piece:
Is the Credit Bubble Popping? Carlyle Group Warns on Frothiness and Junk Bond Deals Get Pulled. After reading about a growing pool of insane "dividend deals" and payment-in-kind" notes being issued, I wondered who in their right mind was buying these deals. Well, based on the complete lack of competence and due diligence happening at public pension funds, I think we have solved part of the mystery.
The chief villain in this article will be no stranger to readers of this site. It is Blackstone, the private equity giant who I have criticized many times on these pages for
buying up homes all across America in "all cash" deals, making homes unaffordable to average American peasants. Of course, Blackstone is just one of many, but given its size and influence, highlighting its practices is probably quite representative.
Comment: Props to the Guardian for publishing such an exemplary propaganda piece! Somebody's gotta do it, and Chris Elliott takes up the task with inhuman vim and vigor. There's so much wrong with Elliott's piece above that it's hard to know where to start. First of all, yes, many governments have paid internet trolls to maintain the accepted talking points and party line on a whole host of issues. But 'Missy' Elliott misses the crux of the matter: how many pro-Kiev comments are being posted by American govt-hired trolls? Why no outrage about the open secret called Hasbara, Israel's online army of brainwashed and brainwashing Net trolls?
Second, why on earth should anti-Kiev comments be described as "particularly nasty", an "infestation", "insidious", "inciteful" [sic]? Let's remember what we're talking about here! After all, a pro-Kiev commenter, by supporting the "Western" narrative, must at least implicitly support the following: externally directed coups against legally elected governments, the murder of innocent people fed up with their corrupt leaders, said leaders ordering troops to kill their fellow citizens, right-wing nazi extremists, the deliberate murder of unarmed civilians by burning them alive, shooting them in the head, strangling pregnant women, et cetera ad nauseam. Using nasty words to describe something that is inherently anti-nastiness is a classic propaganda technique. Is your government engaged in nefarious, murderous, treasonous behavior? Well, just describe the opposition as "particularly nasty", an "infestation", "insidious", "inciteful" and you'll be right as rain!
Third, there is "no conclusive evidence" that this is a Russian campaign! Did it not even enter the empty-headed Elliott's mind that these comments reflect what people actually think? That they're fed up with the murderous regime installed by Western advisers and manipulators, and that online comments reflect this? It's plain as day who's in the wrong here: Kiev, the West, NOT Russia or the anti-Kiev protestors in Ukraine.
Fourth, we have only one response to the Guardian's 'commenter' quoted above, who wrote, "Furthermore, these comments are consistently capturing inordinate numbers of 'recommends', sometimes on the order of 10 to 12 times what pro-Ukrainian comments receive": that's the way it should be!